About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 89 (615 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Chiu 20, Campos 8, Avalos 6, Wiener 6, The City 4, Chu 3, Kim 3, Cohen 3, Priority 2, San Franciscans 2, Mar 2, Farrell 2, Sarah 2, Ammiano 2, Olague 1, Elsbernd 1, Microunits 1, City 1, Legi 1, Soma 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    December 1, 2012
    4:30 - 5:00am PST  

4:30am
now this legislation has -- had quite a winding road to get where we are today, and i've been very grateful for the input from many, many people abouteq%y this legislation. we engaged in extensive negotiations to come up with a piece of legislation that a lot of different people can get behind. i want to particularly thank president chiu for his very productive participation and his staff, as well as gayle gillman from the community housing partnership and sarah short from the housing rights committee. i think we had very productive negotiations and we've come up with a good result. so that result is -- and this is item 39, the planning code amendment, is that for market rate microunits, there will be a cap of 375 units. once we reach 320 units entitled the planning department will be required to go through an analysis of what we produced,
4:31am
where they're located, the type of housing it is. student housing, group housing, and affordable housing will not be subject to this cap. once we get near the cap, and once the planning department does its analysis we will then be in a position to decide whether or not to extend this legislation. colleagues, i think that this is a very positive step afford. i am very appreciative of everyone who participated to getting us here and i ask for your support. i do have some technical amendments to the reporting and reauthorization process in terms of clarifying what will go into that analysis, and making clear that the planning department, in conducting its analysis, will collaborate with the mayor's office of housing to make sure we have very complete data, and also just clarifying how the analysis will take place. we've distributed those amendments.
4:32am
they're non-substantive and i would ask we adopt those amendments to item 39. i also want to acknowledge sophie haywood is here from it the planning department and i want to thank her for her help and participation as well. thank you. >> president chiu: is there a second? seconded by supervisor farrell. can we take that without objection. without objection that will be the case. i want to thank sarah and gayle and other tenant advocates for work that has been done over the last couple of months to get us where we are today. supervisor campos. >> supervisor campos: thank you. i want to thank supervisor wiener and the folks that have worked on this item. i have to say that this, for me, has not been a clear-cut issue. there has been a lot of different thoughts that i've had about this piecen+jau;ñ of legi. i agree with supervisor wiener, that we do need to provide different alternatives and different types of housing as
4:33am
we're facing the -- continue to face the issue of san francisco no longer being an affordable place for so many san franciscans. i had the opportunity to visit with my staff. one of the microunits as they're called, and the units that i visited were actually a little bit larger than what's being proposed here, over 200 square feet. and one of the things that struck me is the fact that even though they do maximum the use of the space, that you're still talking about very small units units that we saw, you were talking about these units potentially being rented at $1500 a month, which is not a lot of space for $1500. so that kind of goes to the crux of my concern, which is, as
4:34am
we're building these microunits, are we, in a way, creating or exacerbating the problem by setting pretty high bar in terms of how expensive housing is. if a 230 square feet unit is going to rent for $1500, what does that do to the rest of the places in san francisco. that is the concern. because of that concern, if we had the first item, item 15, being presented to us on its own, i would be voting against the legislation. but i do think that the existence of item 39, and specifically the establishment of a cap is something that at least gives me some comfort. not this -- if you will, that i fear would materialize. i think having a cap would allow
4:35am
us to have the ability to assess whether or not the negative impact will actually happen. and so it is with the caveat that it's only until we see what actually happens, once these units are built, that i am willing to give this kind of a pilot a try at this point. i do think that if we're going to try something like this, that done by planning is really critical, and i hope that in doing that analysis, once 325 units have been3 h approved, that not onls planning living up to the letter, but also the spirit of what's embedded in this ordinance in terms of giving us as much information to have a pretty accurate assessment of what if any negative impact there is. i also hope that we also talk
4:36am
about and consider how -- where you build these units can also have an impact. depending on the neighborhood that you're talking about, this may be a good fit, it may not. and so i look forward to that information. so with that caveat i will be supporting this piece of legislation, these two pieces of legislation. but, again, in terms of whether or not the negative impactyf%(õl take place, i think that the jury's still out, and i think that we just have to wait and see. but i do want to thank supervisor wiener and all the folks who have worked on this for considering these concerns, and taking them into consideration. >> president chiu: supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: thank you. record to express some of my concerns about this legislation, and its impact on particularly in the south of market, a district that i represent, where i think much of the efficiency
4:37am
dwelling units can be built. i think one of the priorities that we have seen, and we've heard over and over again is of course the need for the city to build more affordable multi-unit housing for families and that this is not necessarily an area that our city needs to prioritize. however, i just want to echo my colleagues in saying that i really actually appreciate supervisor wiener's office, working with many of our housing advocates around this issue, to cross the compromise that is coming before us to allow this building -- to go through but to cap the production of these microunits to 375 units. for that reason i will be voting to support this today. but i still wanted to reiterate the concerns that i had shared several months ago on terms of what this policy may mean. first of all i really do hope that if these units do go forward that they're tried out in other naikdz neighborhoods.
4:38am
soma is already experiencing incredible density and is really struggling to meet that density with infrastructure, whether it is transit and open space. and i think that it'sá ás÷ realy important that as we experiment or pilot this program, that we really study what the impact to those neighborhoods are, and are we adequately meeting those needs based on this policy. these smaller units would increase population -- could increase population in my district by as much as 32%. and i think that as we do this, it's important that we carefully study this. so i prosecute esh that we are going -- appreciate that we are going to move forward with this in this direction. >> president chiu: supervisor avalos. >> supervisor avalos: thank you. this one is kind of troubling to me. i don't think i read the same memo in everyone else. i thought i lived in a efficiency unit. a family of four, 950 square feet and every inch of space is
4:39am
used. and we're just totally crammed in. i live in a district that is 6500 more people more dense than it was 10 years ago, and we have a number of houses that has efficiency units for the number of people who are crammed into them. and a great demand i see for housing is not something that i believe is really the kind of units that we're waiving the way here today. i do see that there are benefits for that and in certain parts of san francisco but i think over all this does not make a lot of sense to the san francisco that i know. i also know there are a lot of people who live in this city who are desperately trying to remain san franciscans representatives of this city, and are finding it difficult to be here because of the rising cost o of rent. i don't believe this is any kind of units being created that will actually be able to help that group of people. so i just cannot stomach, you
4:40am
know, supporting this idea, though there might be some folks who see benefit. i just will be voting against it. >> president chiu: colleagues, any further discussion? let's take a roll call vote on these two items. madam clerk. >> clerk calvillo: on item 15 and 39 as amended, supervisor avalos, no. supervisor campos, aye. president chiu, aye. supervisor chu, aye. supervisor cohen, aye. supervisor elsbernd, aye. supervisor farrell, aye. supervisor kim, aye. supervisor mar, aye. supervisor olague, aye. supervisor wiener, aye. there are 10 ayes and one no. >> president chiu: these ordinances are passed on the first reading. supervisor wiener, item 16. >> clerk calvillo: item 16 is
4:41am
an ordinance amending the administrative code to monitor san francisco's housing preservation and production policies and goals and making the requisite findings. >> president chiu: supervisor olague. >> supervisor olague: if i could be called afterwards. i'm not prepared at this moment. >> president chiu: if we could pass over item 16 aened go to item 17. >> clerk calvillo: item 17, an ordinance amending the planning code to -- development fee rates, revise exemptions and credits and clarify implementation and collection. >> supervisor chiu: supervisor wiener 12k3w4r58 thank you. we are continuing to have dialogue around transit impact development fee update. so we've continued it three times before. i anticipate that this will be the final continuance so i move to continue this item two weeks to december 4. >> president chiu: supervisor wiener has made a motion to continue this item to the 4th of december.
4:42am
seconded by supervisor cohen. without objection this item will be continued to december 4. item 18. >> the clerk: ordinance appropriating approximately 2.7 million of state reserves for san francisco unified school district for fiscal year 2012-2013. >> president chiu: supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: thank you. first i want to take time to appreciate the incredibly high level engagement of discussion, dialogue, there has been around the supplemental which i introduced last month for san francisco unified school district. this is a supplemental that is asking us to give 2.7 million out of our state reserve fund to assist the school district. both in the recent cuts that have been made for the 21st century for their after school funding and also to assist in helping our first two classes of graduates that have to graduate a through g to graduate. as many of you have read in the
4:43am
press we are finding a large number of students are not on track to graduate and our first class to graduate a through g is set in the next few semesters. we have a short timeframe to do that in. we have made this commitment to grow and encourage jobs in the city. we new he had to make sure that our students that are growing up in the city are able to access those jobs because they're graduating college-ready. i want to be clear when we talk about a through g i hear the debate not all kids have to go to college and i agree but all of our kids have to graduate ready for college because you graduate ready for college you're able to access living wage jobs and if you don't have math and science classes that are required a through g you're not going to be able to go into apprenticeship for building and trade programs. so this is an important policy for the city. unfortunately with our first two classes the level of cuts that they've been experienced has not
4:44am
allowed our school district to fully support the program that is needed to do that. i think, also, with our city passing really the highest budget that we have seen in our city's history i think it's more important than ever that we really step our support for your families and our kids. that being said i think that there are a lot of conversations in kind of moving targets as we're finding different moneys coming in from the last fiscal year so i wanted to allow greater time for a conversation to happen about both sources of funding and also specifically how this investment that the city is making, in our class of 2014-15 are going to be met over the next two weeks. so i would like to make a motion to continue this item as well to december 4. and i do want to thank my cosponsors, supervisors campos,ñ mar, avalos and olague. >> president chiu: seconded by supervisor mar. further discussion, supervisor
4:45am
campos. >> supervisor campos: thank you very much. i want to begin by thanking supervisor kim for bringing this item forward. and let me begin by saying that i have been supportive of this effort to provide additional resources to the san francisco unified school district from the very beginning. that's why i signed on as a cosponsor. but i am not, at the present time, continue to be a cosponsor of this item, in its current form. and let me say why. you know, we saw the headlines in the chronicle today about of 2014, we have about 1900 high school students in the city and county of san francisco that may not be able to graduate, and meet the graduation requirements that were established by the san francisco board of education. we, in san francisco, have seen tremendous economic growth coming out of the most severe
4:46am
recession since the great depression, and having served on regional bodies that include other jurisdictions, i can tell you that we are very lucky in san francisco, that we are lucky that we have the resources that we have had, and that we hopefully will continue to have. but, yetd yet, in a city as wealthy as san francisco we have a school district that is facing a crisis. we have about half of our students in this class of 2014 that may not be able to graduate and meet the requirements. san francisco has to do better than that. and even though money is not everything, the ability for us to commit resources as a city is really important. and what i understand of this item is that there is a discussion about whether or not
4:47am
to tie the funding that's underlying this item to the rainy day fund. and to the extent that happens, to the extent that there is a connection between this appropriation and the rainy day fund, i will not support it. the rainy day fund was created for the very purpose of this city making public education a priority. the rainy day fund, as was enacted by the board of supervisors, as was crafted by then supervisor ammiano has to stand on its own terms, it has its own triggers, its own mechanisms for deciding what exactly the school district gets. and to the extent that we are trying to use this supplemental appropriation as a09( #ta way of minimizing the amount given to the school district through the rainy day fund i have a problem with that. so to the extent that this item comes back to us in the form where it is tied to the rainy
4:48am
day fund, i will not be supporting it, and i would encourage parents and folks in the public school community to make sure that they get involved in terms of what happens with this item, because to the extent that we set a precedent here at this board of supervisors, that going forward we're going to tie future funding of the scriblth to the rainy day fund i think we are setting a very dangerous principle, a dangerous principle that ultimately would undermine and could undermine the rainy day fund and its purpose. so i look forward to having an ongoing discussion about this item, but if it is, as i have heard, that there is going to be a connection made to the rainy day fund, i will not support that. and i think that there are many people in the education community, in the public school system here, who should have reasons to be concerned about that connection. we need to make public education a priority.
4:49am
and even though we're a separate government entity from the school district, we have an obligation to our kids to make sure that there is proper funding of education at the local level, and that ensures -- that requires that we protect what the rainy day fund has done for our public schools, what it can do going forward, and to tie it to this supplemental i think is simply a mistake and is something that could have long-term negative consequences that i hope we don't get to. >> president chiu: supervisor olague. >> supervisor olague: i want to thank supervisor kim and her staff for working so diligently on this with the school district. this supplemental funding will help counseling and staff assistance for students who have stumbled and need help to get back on track to graduate. this is the example of the safety net that we as supervisors have ability to utie to help those in need. we had an achievement gap for
4:50am
african-american students and we heard data about the achievement gaps, english language learners, latino students and our api students. the number of students that are at risk of not completing the a through g requirements and therefore at risk of not graduating is unacceptable. by adopting this legislation, we have the chance to put our money where our mouth is and support children and families in san francisco. by voting for this i hope to elevate equal access to education to the forefront of all of our minds. it is critically important for the city to step up where it can to fill the gaps and help students on their paths toward achievement. this legislation truly represents a solution based agenda that will serve our agenda that will serve our children and ensure that we asew to success, particularly for students of color and low income students. i am happy to support this item as it demonstrates our committed partnership with the school
4:51am
district to include outcome for students in san francisco. >> president chiu: supervisor mar. >> supervisor mar: thank you. i wanted to also thank supervisor kim and coleman advocates and the board of education commissioners, i know with vice president rachel norton, sandy -- stepped with us on the steps today for the cities to step up and support the most vulnerable high school students that are in danger of not graduating, i think about 1900 students as the chronicle stmed two days ago. but i am sensitive to supervisor campos' comments about the potential threats to the rainy day fund and imhoping with the week's continuance that we try to work on this issue. i know -- lee, one of the -- and sf usd has developed an action plan to make sure students have potential to meet a through g,
4:52am
csu requirements that we support as many people as we can with not only after school programs but on line and other types of supplemental support so that we maximize our support so we make sure students don't fall through the cracks and they could earn their diplomas for high school. i agree with supervisor olague that this is a issue about equity. it's about supporting not only african-american and latino high learner high school students as well and i think it's an important effort that we make a statement as a city that we support our school district especially the most vulnerable in our communities. i also wanted to lastly thank the many parents and youth advocates, the youth commission and many others for raising this issue as an important justice issue for all of us and i will be proudly support the issue measure but i look forward to dialogue about not threatening the rainy day fund and also making sure that we advocate to
4:53am
reauthorize so-called prop h now called public education enrichment fund so that in 2013 we build a broad coalition to reauthorize that important support for our school district. thank you. >> president chiu: supervisor chu. >> supervisor chu: thank you. one of the -- that did come before the budget and finance committee and we had a very healthy discussion as well as presentation by the school district on this topic. so since that time i also have met with the school district to discuss more of the budgetary issues that is facing san francisco unified school district and have a better understanding of course of what they face in the coming years. i wanted to just explain the reason why i did vote against this item when it came before us at the budget and finance committee. i will be supporting the continuance and hope that we will have conversations and further information. but primarily when we think about a through g and having our kids be prepared to be able to enter into higher education, i don't think anybody in this room disagrees with that.
4:54am
supported having the san francisco unified school district have an a through g requirement. i think that if you ask most people in this room people also would agree that we wanted to make sure that kids have opportunity to catch on up credits so they can graduate. so i don't think that that is the question. i think for me, really the biggest question really is on the specifics and here the details do matter. we have a supplemental appropriation that is 2.7 million. in terms of the 21st century funding that was lost that was only 1.6 million. so thi there is a program extenn in the program level that we have to consider. so i think we would benefit from further understanding what the school district's plans are in terms of this expansion. it's not simply to backfill lost funding. it is higher than that level. in addition i think there are fundmental questions about how it is the school district plans to continue to pay for this in the long-term. as you know, we've heard from the school district that their intention is to come to the city
4:55am
on a one-time basis but this is only funding source for half a year. and so hypothetically in the year -- the school district would have to pay for an annualized expense ongoing, year after year. so i think that we don't have an answer from the school district about what their intentions are. nor do we have really the answer from the san francisco unified school district about how they prioritize this in light of some of the other budget priorities that they may have. so i think we would benefit from having a continuance, but i do think these are very important questions to ask before we make this decision. so again i want to thank supervisor kim for the continuance. i do think that the cause is a worthy one. i think having credits that kids can catch up on is a good thing to have kids be able to graduate from our school district. but i think it matters about how the school district intends to prioritize this in their own budget. i think it matters about how they intend to continue supporting this in the long run. thank you. >> president chiu: supervisor elsbernd.
4:56am
>> supervisor elsbernd: thank you, mr. president. this is likely my last clans to chime in on something supervisor mar talked about because this is a bit of a precursor to the prop h discussion that you will have over the next 12 months. and hearing supervisor campos talk to some extent i felt if i closed my eyes i thought -- former supervisor now assemblyman ammiano saying the same things he would have said if he were here. on the prop h extension one thing i hope is discussed, as you move forward on that, is frankly a little bit more of truth in advertising on a very particular point that has frustrated me throughout the years prop h has been implemented and that's the in-kind services. when supervisor ammiano put that forward, particularly when he campaigned frankly in my district throughout the west side what we heard a great deal about was in-kind services. it won't be a significant hit on the city a general fund because we will begin to account for all the things the city already pays
4:57am
for whether it be puc paying for frankly later in this meeting, muni, the dollars that are going to go to youth fast passes. those are in-kind services. but school district, i mean has given us this much in in-kind services. there's been nothing of significance in in-kind services. and there is a win/win. i've tried for years to make that happen. the city could save a little money on its general fund especially if we looked at in-kind from the departments but that was consistently ignored. i hope as you develop extensions of prop h, if you're going to do it, do it. if not, fine. let's be honest about it. don't tell the voters that there will be in-kind when there isn't as has been the case for the last 10 years. >> president chiu: supervisor cohen. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. thank you for agreeing to continue this item. this is an important policy discussion we need to continue.
4:58am
and i -- where i am uncomfortable lies more with the school district. i just would like to get a better understanding about their expansion plans and how they plan to support these expansion plans. i do particularly have a positive experience for the last two summers, working with providing supplemental summer school instruction particularly for our high school students inside district 10, ycd -- did an excellent job in providing summer enrichment as well as helping kids make that diploma. so in the future i'm sure we have representatives from the school district here. i'd love to talk more about the understanding that you have a 1.6 federal dollars missed out of your budget and if i can get a better understanding of how you get to 2.7 million in your
4:59am
total request for money. thank you. >> president chiu: supervisor avalos. >> supervisor avalos: thank you, president chiu. i wasn't planning to speak on this. i was going to wait until it came back to us in a couple of weeks. but i couldn't help but react to the discussion about in-kind services. i think there's a lot of things that we can say the school district provides to us that can't be counted. my wife is a school teacher. she works about 10, 11, sometimes 12 hours a day. and multiply that by thousands of teachers who are doing that kind of work, this 5,000 -- maybe they don't all work 10, 11, 12 hour days but a lot do and we are one of the lowest per capita funding for students as a state and san francisco, within the state of california, and we're hard-pressed to make sure our schools are well funded. i believe whatever we can give to the school district is going to be